The definition of family has changed considerably over the years. Your question for debate is:
Who should be covered under these highly regulated benefits? Should the definition of family be altered or deleted when structuring benefit plans?
Much of the rationale is directed at the unfair bias in benefits for traditional families versus non-traditional families. With a divorce rate hovering at 50 percent and the number of single households adopting children, as well as the debate over recognizing partnerships, the issues are gaining more attention. A recent article cited some 1400-plus legal benefits and protections of being in a civil marriage.
Does that constitute an unfair bias? Should the law change? What is your opinion on this issue? Cite and reference a source of support for your opinion
This does constitute an unfair bias. The reasons are that those that live in relationships outside normal marriage should have equal access to advantages. Civil marriage is still the largest form of family union, however, other family forms like single marriage families or gay families should also be recognized by law as legitimate forms of 'family' and the benefits conferred on civil families should be conferred onto them. Are gays exempt from taxes? ...
This posting disusses the issue of who should be covered under Family Benefits